A Classification Compliance Audit Report on Information ... · A Classification Compliance Audit...

State Auditor’s Office reports are available on the Internet at http://www.sao.texas.gov/.

A Classification Compliance Audit Report on

Information Technology Positions at Natural Resources Agencies

February 2019 Report No. 19-706

http://www.sao.texas.gov/

A Classification Compliance Audit Report on

Information Technology Positions at Natural Resources Agencies

SAO Report No. 19-706 February 2019

This audit was conducted in accordance with Texas Government Code, Sections 654.036 and 654.038.

For more information regarding this report, please contact Courtney Ambres-Wade, Audit Manager, or Lisa Collier, First Assistant State Auditor, at (512) 936-9500.

Overall Conclusion

A total of 335 (78.8 percent) of the 425 employees tested were classified correctly in accordance with the State’s Position Classification Plan. Employees1 tested included those performing information technology work at the following eight natural resources agencies (Article VI of the General Appropriations Act, 85th Legislature):

Animal Health Commission.

Commission on Environmental Quality.

Department of Agriculture.

General Land Office.

Parks and Wildlife Department.

Railroad Commission.

Soil and Water Conservation Board.

Water Development Board.

The agencies have taken or asserted they will take appropriate action to address the 90 misclassifications by:

Reclassifying 49 employees (54.4 percent) into a different job classification series. For example, to correct one misclassification, an agency reclassified a systems analyst to a programmer.

Reclassifying 38 employees (42.2 percent) within the same job classification series but at a higher salary group.

Reclassifying 1 employee (1.1 percent) within the same job classification series but at a lower salary group.

1 Includes employees in a job classification series located in the Information Technology occupational category within the State’s Position Classification Plan. Also included in this audit were employees who were identified by their respective agencies as performing information technology-related work but were in a job classification series located in another occupational category.

Position Classification Plan Definitions

Occupational Category – A broad series of job families characterized by the nature of work performed. For fiscal year 2018, the Position Classification Plan covered 27 occupational categories (for example, Social Services and Information Technology).

Job Classification Series – A hierarchical structure of jobs arranged into job classification titles involving work of the same nature but requiring different levels of responsibility.

Job Classification Title – An individual job within a job classification series. Each job classification title has a corresponding salary group assignment appropriate for the type and level of work being performed (for example, Programmer III).

Reclassification – The act of changing an employee from one job classification to another job classification that better reflects the level

or type of work being performed.

A Classification Compliance Audit Report on Information Technology Positions at Natural Resources Agencies

SAO Report No. 19-706

ii

Changing the job duties of 2 employees (2.2 percent)2 so the employees could remain in their current job classification titles and be properly classified.

The Commission on Environmental Quality, the Parks and Wildlife Department, and the Soil and Water Conservation Board reported they will spend a total of $45,490 annually to properly classify 14 of the 90 misclassified employees. There was no cost associated with addressing the remaining misclassified employees for all agencies. The agencies reported that no employee received a salary decrease as a result of this audit.

Table 1 on the next page presents a summary of the findings in this report and the related issue ratings. (See Appendix 2 for more information about the issue rating classifications and descriptions.)

The agencies self-reported the classification information on which this audit focused. However, auditors performed certain quality control procedures to help ensure the accuracy of the information used.

2 Percentages do not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.



iii

Table 1

Summary of Chapters/Subchapters and Related Issue Ratings

Chapter/ Subchapter Title Issue Rating a

1 Information Technology at State Agencies Not Rated

2-A Analysis of Misclassified Employees at the Animal Health Commission Low

2-B Analysis of Misclassified Employees at the Commission on Environmental Quality Medium

2-C Analysis of Misclassified Employees at the Department of Agriculture Low

2-D Analysis of Misclassified Employees at the General Land Office Low

2-E Analysis of Misclassified Employees at the Parks and Wildlife Department High

2-F Analysis of Misclassified Employees at the Railroad Commission Low

2-G Analysis of Misclassified Employees at the Soil and Water Conservation Board Low

2-H Analysis of Misclassified Employees at the Water Development Board Low

a A subchapter is rated Priority if the issues identified present risks or effects that if not addressed could critically affect the audited

entity’s ability to effectively administer the program(s)/function(s) audited. Immediate action is required to address the noted concern

and reduce risks to the audited entity.

A subchapter is rated High if the issues identified present risks or effects that if not addressed could substantially affect the audited entity’s ability to effectively administer the program(s)/function(s) audited. Prompt action is essential to address the noted concern and reduce risks to the audited entity.

A subchapter is rated Medium if the issues identified present risks or effects that if not addressed could moderately affect the audited entity’s ability to effectively administer the program(s)/function(s) audited. Action is needed to address the noted concern and reduce risks to a more desirable level.

A subchapter is rated Low if the audit identified strengths that support the audited entity’s ability to administer the program(s)/function(s) audited or the issues identified do not present significant risks or effects that would negatively affect the audited entity’s ability to effectively administer the program(s)/function(s) audited.

Summary of Management’s Response

At the end of Subchapters 2-B, 2-D, and 2-E, the State Auditor’s Office made recommendations to the Commission on Environmental Quality, the General Land Office, and the Parks and Wildlife Department management to address the misclassifications identified during this audit.

The Commission on Environmental Quality, the General Land Office, and the Parks and Wildlife Department agreed with the recommendations.

Audit Objective and Scope

The objective of this classification compliance audit was to determine whether agencies are properly classifying employees in conformance with the State’s Position Classification Plan. In determining whether an employee position is properly classified, the State Classification Team reviews the position as a whole, including the duties and responsibilities and the percentage of time duties are performed. Classification determinations are made based on the most appropriate



iv

job classification title within the State’s Position Classification Plan that best describes the majority of duties being performed.

The scope3 of this audit included 425 employees within the Information Technology occupational category or performing information technology-related work at the 8 natural resources agencies (Article VI of the General Appropriations Act, 85th Legislature) as of September 1, 2018. The agencies audited were the Animal Health Commission, the Commission on Environmental Quality, the Department of Agriculture, the General Land Office, the Parks and Wildlife Department, the Railroad Commission, the Soil and Water Conservation Board, and the Water Development Board.

3 The scope may exclude employees who were on extended leave, were promoted, or who left the agency during audit

fieldwork.

Contents

Detailed Results

Chapter 1 Information Technology at State Agencies ........................ 1

Chapter 2 Analysis of Employees Classified in the Information Technology Occupational Category at Natural Resources Agencies ................................................................ 2

Appendices

Appendix 1 Objective, Scope, and Methodology .............................. 19

Appendix 2 Issue Rating Classifications and Descriptions .................... 22

Appendix 3 Related State Auditor’s Office Work ............................. 23

A Classification Compliance Audit Report on Information Technology Positions at Natural Resources Agencies SAO Report No. 19-706

February 2019 Page 1

Detailed Results

Chapter 1

Information Technology at State Agencies

Information technology careers at state agencies cover a broad range of jobs. Employees who work in the information technology field perform duties such as computer programming, database administration, software development, preventing and detecting cybersecurity threats, analyzing and maintaining computer systems, and designing and maintaining Web sites. Employees performing this type of work may be classified in the programmer, data base administrator, information technology security analyst, and Web administrator job classification series. Those types of jobs and others in the information technology field may grow faster than other jobs at state agencies (see text box).

Increase in Information Technology Employees at State Agencies. In fiscal year 2018, the State employed 4,471 full-time and part-time classified employees in a job classification series within the Information Technology occupational category. The number of employees in this occupational category increased by 5.0 percent since fiscal year 2014. In fiscal year 2018, of the 4,471 full-

time and part-time classified employees included in this occupational category, 9.7 percent4 were employed at natural resources agencies (Article VI of the General Appropriations Act, 85th Legislature). Figure 1 shows the five-year trend of employees classified in the Information Technology occupational category.

In fiscal year 2018, the two job classification series with the greatest number of employees in the Information Technology occupational category were Systems Analyst and Programmer. Those 2 job classification series comprised 55.7 percent (2,492) of the total number of full-time and part-time classified employees in information technology positions at state agencies.

4 The percentage is based on the number of employees in fiscal year 2018, which is not the same as the number of employees

within the audit scope. The difference is attributed to various factors such as employee turnover and employees on extended leave.

Job Outlook

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, employment in information technology occupations is projected to grow 13 percent from 2016 to 2026, faster than the average for all occupations. That growth is attributed, in part, to a greater emphasis on cloud computing, the collection and storage of big data, and information security, which is causing jobs such as information security analysts to grow by a projected 28 percent during that same time period.

Source: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-

information-technology/home.htm.

Figure 1

Five-year Trend in the Number of Full- and Part-time Employees in the Information Technology Occupational

Category

Sources: Uniform Statewide Payroll/Personnel System, Human Resource Information System, and Standardized Payroll/Personnel Reporting System.

4,2574,343

4,428 4,439 4,471

Fiscal Year2014

Fiscal Year2015

Fiscal Year2016

Fiscal Year2017

Fiscal Year2018



Chapter 2

Analysis of Employees Classified in the Information Technology Occupational Category at Natural Resources Agencies

A total of 335 (78.8 percent) of the 425 employees tested at the 8 natural resources agencies (Article VI of the General Appropriations Act, 85th Legislature) were correctly classified in accordance with the State’s Position Classification Plan. Specifically, of the 425 employees tested:

417 employees were in a job classification series that fell within the Information Technology occupational category.

8 employees were identified by their respective agencies as performing information technology-related work but were in a job classification series located within another occupational category.

Table 2 summarizes by agency the number of misclassifications identified during this audit.

Table 2

Summary of Employees Tested by Agency

Agency Name

Number of Employees

Tested

Number of Misclassified Employees

Percent of Misclassified

Employees a

Animal Health Commission 12 1 8.3%

Commission on Environmental Quality 160 26 16.3%

Department of Agriculture 25 5 20.0%

General Land Office 50 7 14.0%

Parks and Wildlife Department 88 31 35.2%

Railroad Commission 58 15 25.9%

Soil and Water Conservation Board 3 1 33.3%

Water Development Board 29 4 13.8%

Totals 425 90 21.2%

a The percent of misclassified employees may appear skewed for agencies that have fewer than 50 employees

within the audit scope.

Importance of Appropriate Job Classification

Appropriate job classification is important in determining salary rates that are competitive for the work performed. If employees are classified in positions at too high of a level for the work they perform, agencies may be paying the employees more than their job duties warrant. This can create internal pay inequities within the agency. If employees are classified in positions at too low of a level for the work they perform, employees could be underpaid. This could result in higher turnover, which could be costly for the agencies in terms of hiring and training new staff or through lost

productivity.



Agencies have taken or asserted they will take action to address misclassifications.

To address the misclassifications of the 90 employees, agencies chose to:

Reclassify 49 employees (54.4 percent) into a different job classification series. For example, to correct one misclassification, an agency reclassified a systems analyst to a programmer.

Reclassify 38 employees (42.2 percent) within the same job classification series but at a higher salary group.

Reclassify 1 employee (1.1 percent) within the same job classification series but at a lower salary group.5

Change the job duties of 2 employees (2.2 percent)6 so the employees could remain in their current job classification title and be properly classified.

Table 3 on the next page lists the job classification series included in this audit. The table also summarizes the number of misclassified employees in each job classification series within the Information Technology occupational category, as well as employees identified by their respective agencies as performing information technology-related work but were in a job classification series located in another occupational category.

5 The agency reported that the employee did not receive a salary decrease as a result of this audit.

6 Percentages do not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.

Determining Appropriate Job Classification

When determining proper job classification for the purpose of this audit, the State Auditor’s Office did not focus on specific differences between one level and the next in a job classification series (for example, Programmer I compared to Programmer II). Rather, the focus is on whether an employee is appropriately classified within broad responsibility levels, such as Staff Programmer (Programmer I, Programmer II, and Programmer III) compared to Senior Programmer (Programmer IV, Programmer V, and Programmer VI).



Table 3

Job Classification Series Audited

Job Classification Series Number of Employees

Tested Number of Misclassified

Employees

Business Analyst 21 6

Business Continuity Coordinator 1 1

Computer Operations Specialist 13 0

Cybersecurity Analyst 1 0

Data Base Administrator 15 3

Data Entry Operator 3 1

Geographic Information Specialist 32 10

Information Technology Auditor 5 4

Information Security Officer 1 0

Information Technology Security Analyst 10 3

Network Specialist 35 4

Programmer 91 10

Systems Administrator 25 2

Systems Analyst 106 30

Systems Support Specialist 24 4

Telecommunications Specialist 9 2

Web Administrator 25 4

Other a 8 6

Totals 425 90

a Includes Human Resources Specialist, Information Specialist, Manager, and Program Specialist job classification

series, which are in occupational categories other than Information Technology.

Salaries will increase for 14 employees. The Commission on Environmental Quality, the Parks and Wildlife Department, and the Soil and Water Conservation Board reported they will spend a total of $45,490 annually to properly classify 14 of the 90 misclassified employees. Increases range from $277 to $7,920 annually. However, in most cases, agencies were able to properly classify employees through reclassification or a restructuring of job duties without changing their salaries. This chapter contains detailed information for each agency within the scope of this audit.



Information Technology experience and education levels vary. Experience and education levels vary across agencies for the 414 employees7 within the scope of this audit who were performing information technology work and were or will be classified in a job classification series located in the Information Technology occupational category. Specifically:

Employees had an average of 16.1 years of occupational experience.

The majority (68.8 percent) had a bachelor’s degree or higher level degree.

The two job classification series with the most employees were the Systems Analyst and Programmer job classification series. Approximately 75 percent of those employees had more than 10 years of occupational experience, and most had a bachelor’s degree or higher. Figure 2 provides additional information on the average years of experience and education levels as reported by employees.

Figure 2

7 Excludes 11 employees who were or will be classified into a job classification series that is not within the Information

Technology occupational category.

Systems Analyst and Programmer

Education Levels and Average Occupational Experience a

Systems Analyst

91 Employees

Programmer b

90 Employees

a Includes employees correctly classified as a systems analyst or programmer and those who were or will be reclassified into one of these job

classification series.

b Percentages do not sum to 100.0 due to rounding.

Source: Classification Compliance Audit System, State Auditor’s Office.

15.4%

12.1%

72.5%

High School/Equivalent Associate's Degree

Bachelor's Degree or Higher

3.3%

3.3%

93.3%

High School/Equivalent Associate's Degree

Bachelor's Degree or Higher

Average Experience

16.0 Years

Average Experience

16.6 Years



Chapter 2-A

Analysis of Misclassified Employees at the Animal Health Commission

Eleven (91.7 percent) of the 12 employees tested at the Animal Health Commission (Commission) were correctly classified.

Table 4 shows the number of those employees by job classification series, as well as the number of misclassified employees.

Table 4

Summary of Employees Tested by Job Classification Series at the Commission



Employees





Programmer 4 1



Totals 12 1

The Commission took appropriate action to address the misclassified employee and reclassified that employee into a different job classification series. There was no cost associated with reclassifying the employee.

8 The risk related to the issues discussed in Chapter 2-A is rated as Low because the audit identified strengths that support the

audited entity’s ability to administer the program(s)/function(s) audited or the issues identified do not present significant risks or effects that would negatively affect the audited entity’s ability to effectively administer the program(s)/function(s) audited.

Chapter 2-A Rating:

Low 8



Chapter 2-B

Analysis of Misclassified Employees at the Commission on Environmental Quality

A total of 134 (83.8 percent) of the 160 employees tested at the Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission) were correctly classified. However, of the 26 misclassified employees, auditors noted the following:

The majority (69.2 percent) of misclassified employees were in an incorrect job classification series, including five employees who were also in the incorrect occupational category. For example, one employee will be reclassified from a Systems Support Specialist to an Administrative Assistant. The Administrative Assistant job classification series is in the Administrative Support occupational category and not the Information Technology occupational category.

23.1 percent of misclassified employees will require a salary increase to bring their salary up to the minimum of the new salary range.

Table 5 on the next page shows the number of employees by job classification series, as well as the number of employees that were misclassified.

9 The risk related to the issues discussed in Chapter 2-B is rated as Medium because the issues identified present risks or effects

that if not addressed could moderately affect the audited entity’s ability to effectively administer program(s)/function(s) audited. Action is needed to address the noted concern and reduce risks to a more desirable level.

Chapter 2-B Rating:

Medium 9



Table 5

The Commission asserted that it will take appropriate action to address the 26 misclassified employees. Specifically, the Commission will:

Reclassify 8 employees within the same job classification series but at a higher salary group.

Reclassify 18 employees into a different job classification series.

As a result of the reclassifications, 6 employees will receive an annual salary increase ranging from $277 to $6,073 for a total annual cost of $16,232. There was no cost associated with reclassifying the other 20 employees.



Tested Number of

Misclassified Employees


Business Continuity Coordinator 1 1

Computer Operations Specialist 13 0



Human Resources Specialist a

1 1



Programmer 28 3

Program Specialist a

2 2






Totals 160 26

a Job classification series is not located in the Information Technology occupational category.

Employees tested were identified by the agency as performing information technology-related work; therefore, they were included in this audit.



Recommendation

To comply with the State’s Position Classification Plan, the Commission should complete all reclassifications and salary adjustments for the employees identified during this audit as misclassified.

Management’s Response

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) agrees with the recommendations of the State Auditor. We will notify the 26 employees identified as misclassified during this classification compliance audit and work with their management to reclassify them, as recommended. No employee will receive a decrease in salary in the process. Please note that the Director, Human Resources and Staff Services Division is TCEQ's representative responsible for ensuring that these reclassifications are made. These actions will be effective March 1, 2019.



Chapter 2-C

Analysis of Misclassified Employees at the Department of Agriculture

Twenty (80.0 percent) of the 25 employees tested at the Department of Agriculture (Department) were correctly classified. Table 6 shows the number of those employees by job classification series, as well as the number of misclassified employees.

Table 6

Summary of Employees Tested by Job Classification Series at the Department



Employees




Programmer 10 2


Systems Analyst 7 2


Totals 25 5

The Department took appropriate action to address the five misclassified employees. Specifically, the Department:

Reclassified three employees within the same job classification series but at a higher salary group.

Reclassified one employee within the same job classification series but at a lower salary group; however, this employee did not receive a reduction in salary.

Reclassified one employee into a different job classification series.

There was no cost associated with reclassifying the employees.

10 The risk related to the issues discussed in Chapter 2-C is rated as Low because the audit identified strengths that support the


Chapter 2-C Rating:

Low 10



Chapter 2-D

Analysis of Misclassified Employees at the General Land Office

Forty-three (86.0 percent) of the 50 employees tested at the General Land Office (Office) were correctly classified. Table 7 shows the number of those employees by job classification series, as well as the number of misclassified employees.

Table 7

Summary of Employees Tested by Job Classification Series at the Office



Employees


Cybersecurity Analyst 1 0



Information Security Officer 1 0




Programmer 15 2

Systems Analyst 5 3



Totals 50 7

The Office asserted it will take appropriate action to address the seven misclassified employees. Specifically, the Office will:

Reclassify five employees within the same job classification series but at a higher salary group.

Reclassify two employees into a different job classification series.

The Office asserted that there will be no cost associated with reclassifying the employees.

11 The risk related to the issues discussed in Chapter 2-D is rated as Low because the audit identified strengths that support the


Chapter 2-D Rating:

Low 11



Recommendation

To comply with the State’s Position Classification Plan, the Office should complete all reclassifications for employees identified during this audit as misclassified.


The General Land Office (GLO) agrees with the recommendations of the State Auditor's Office to reclassify employees identified as misclassified during this audit and notified the employees. Seven employees will be reclassified. Two employees have been reclassed into a different job classification series. Five employees have been reclassified with the same job classification series but at a higher salary group. No employee will receive a decrease in salary because of this audit. The reclassification actions were effective on February 1, 2019.

Person Responsible: Deputy Director, Human Resources

Completion Date: February 1, 2019



Chapter 2-E

Analysis of Misclassified Employees at the Parks and Wildlife Department

Fifty-seven (64.8 percent) of the 88 employees tested at the Parks and Wildlife Department (Department) were correctly classified. However, of the 31 misclassified employees, auditors noted the following:

The majority (67.7 percent) of misclassified employees were in an incorrect job classification series, including five employees who were also in an incorrect occupational category. For example, one employee will be reclassified from a Systems Analyst to a Manager. The Manager job classification series is in the Program Management occupational category and not the Information Technology occupational category.

19.4 percent of misclassified employees will require a salary increase to bring their salary up to the minimum of the new salary range.

Table 8 on the next page shows the number of employees by job classification series, as well as the number of misclassified employees.

12 The risk related to the issues discussed in Chapter 2-E is rated as High because the issues identified present risks or effects

that if not addressed could substantially affect the audited entity’s ability to effectively administer the program(s)/function(s) audited. Prompt action is essential to address the noted concern and reduce risks to the audited entity.

Chapter 2-E Rating:

High 12



Table 8

Summary of Employees Tested by Job Classification Series at the Department



Employees





Human Resources Specialist a 1 1

Information Specialist a 1 0



Manager a 1 0


Program Specialist a 2 2

Programmer 13 1






Totals 88 31

a Job classification series is not located in the Information Technology occupational category. Employees

tested were identified by the agency as performing information technology-related work; therefore, they were included in this audit.

The Department asserted that it will take appropriate action to address the 31 misclassified employees. Specifically, the Department will:

Reclassify 8 employees within the same job classification series but at a higher salary group.

Reclassify 21 employees into a different job classification series.

Change the job duties of 2 employees so that they can remain classified in their current job classification title.

As a result of the reclassifications, the Department asserted that 7 employees will receive an annual salary increase ranging from $1,212 to $7,920 for a total annual cost of $26,763.



Recommendation

To comply with the State’s Position Classification Plan, the Department should complete all reclassifications, salary adjustments, and job restructuring for the employees identified during this audit as misclassified.


This audit aids our agency in ensuring that our employees are correctly classified and adequately compensated. In areas such as Information Technology our employees are often required to be much more versatile and function in generalists type classifications versus specialist roles to ensure full operational coverage for the agency. The SAO audit served to validate the reclassifications already initiated for 4 of 7 positions needing salary increases.

TPWD agrees with the audit report and will comply with the recommendations made by doing the following no later than April 1, 2019:

8 positions in the correct pay range will be classified in a higher pay grade

(i.e.: classified as a B 22 but should be a B 24).

2 positions will have full job descriptions restructured.

21 positions will be reclassified into a different job classification series.



Chapter 2-F

Analysis of Misclassified Employees at the Railroad Commission

Forty-three (74.1 percent) of the 58 employees tested at the Railroad Commission (Commission) were correctly classified. Table 9 shows the number of those employees by job classification series, as well as the number of misclassified employees.

Table 9




Employees





Programmer 14 1


Systems Analyst 8 1



Totals 58 15

The Commission took appropriate action to address the 15 misclassified employees. Specifically, the Commission:

Reclassified 13 employees into the same job classification series but at a higher salary group.

Reclassified 2 employees into a different job classification series.

There was no cost associated with reclassifying the employees.

13 The risk related to the issues discussed in Chapter 2-F is rated as Low because the audit identified strengths that support the


Chapter 2-F Rating:

Low 13



Chapter 2-G

Analysis of Misclassified Employees at the Soil and Water Conservation Board

Two (66.7 percent) of the 3 employees tested at the Soil and Water Conservation Board (Board) were correctly classified. Table 10 shows the number of those employees by job classification series, as well as the number of misclassified employees.

Table 10

Summary of Employees Tested by Job Classification Series at the Board



Employees



Totals 3 1

The Board took appropriate action to address the misclassified employee and reclassified that employee within the same job classification series but at a higher salary group. The employee’s annual salary increased by $2,495 as a result of the reclassification.

14 The risk related to the issues discussed in Chapter 2-G is rated as Low because the audit identified strengths that support the


Chapter 2-G Rating:

Low 14



Chapter 2-H

Analysis of Misclassified Employees at the Water Development Board

Twenty-five (86.2 percent) of the 29 employees tested at the Water Development Board (Board) were correctly classified. Table 11 shows the number of those employees by job classification series, as well as the number of misclassified employees.

Table 11

Summary of Employees Tested by Job Classification Series at the Board



Employees





Programmer 7 0




Totals 29 4

The Board took appropriate action to address the four misclassified employees and reclassified those employees into a different job classification series. There was no cost associated with reclassifying the employees.

15 The risk related to the issues discussed in Chapter 2-H is rated as Low because the audit identified strengths that support the


Chapter 2-H Rating:

Low 15



Appendices

Appendix 1

Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Objective

The objective of this classification compliance audit was to determine whether agencies are properly classifying employees in conformance with the State’s Position Classification Plan. In determining whether an employee position is properly classified, the State Classification Team reviews the position as a whole, including the duties and responsibilities and the percentage of time duties are performed. Classification determinations are made based on the most appropriate classification within the State’s Position Classification Plan that best describes the majority of duties being performed.

Scope

The scope16 of this audit included 425 employees within the Information Technology occupational category or performing information technology- related work at the 8 natural resources agencies (Article VI of the General Appropriations Act, 85th Legislature) as of September 1, 2018. The agencies audited were the Animal Health Commission, the Commission on Environmental Quality, the Department of Agriculture, the General Land Office, the Parks and Wildlife Department, the Railroad Commission, the Soil and Water Conservation Board, and the Water Development Board.

Methodology

The audit methodology included collecting information and documentation, reviewing and analyzing surveys completed by employees at the eight agencies and verified by their supervisors, and conducting interviews with management at the eight agencies.

The State Auditor’s Office’s State Classification Team evaluates jobs on a “whole job” basis to determine proper job classifications. The determinations are primarily based on a comparison of duties and responsibilities of the majority of work being performed against the state job description.

When determining proper classification, the State Classification Team does not focus on specific differences between one level and the next level in a

16 The scope may exclude employees who were on extended leave, were promoted, or who left the agency during audit

fieldwork.



job classification series (for example, Programmer I compared to Programmer II). Instead, the State Classification Team considers whether an employee is appropriately classified within broad responsibility levels, such as Staff Programmer (Programmer I, Programmer II, and Programmer III positions) compared to Senior Programmer (Programmer IV, Programmer V, and Programmer VI positions).

The State Classification Team used an automated job evaluation process. The State Classification Team populated a database with information regarding the employees whose positions were tested. Staff at the eight agencies verified the information to ensure that all employees within the audit scope were included. Employees at those agencies were then asked to complete online surveys describing the work they perform and the percentage of time they spend performing their duties. Supervisors were asked to review and verify employees’ survey responses.

Completed survey results were entered into an automated job evaluation system, which made an initial determination of whether the employees were appropriately classified. The State Classification Team reviewed all surveys to determine and validate the proper classification of employees. The State Classification Team made follow-up calls or sent clarification emails to gather additional information to determine the proper classification of employees. Each agency then had the opportunity to review and address potential misclassifications.

Data Reliability and Completeness

Auditors determined that the data in the Classification Compliance Audit System was reliable for the purposes of this audit.

Information collected and reviewed included the following:

Surveys completed by employees and verified by their supervisors.

Correspondence from the human resources offices and supervisors at the eight agencies.

Procedures and tests conducted included the following:

Performed follow-up calls and sent emails to the eight agencies to validate proper classification of employees and to gather additional information to resolve discrepancies.



Criteria used included the following:

Texas Government Code, Chapter 654.

State job descriptions.

Project Information

Audit fieldwork was conducted from September 2018 through January 2019. We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The following members of the State Auditor’s staff performed the audit:

Sharon Schneider, CCP, PHR, SHRM-CP (Project Manager)

Kathy-Ann Moe, MBA (Assistant Project Manager)

Judy Millar, CCP

Juan R. Sanchez, MPA

Lara Tai, PHR, SHRM-CP

Michelle Ann Duncan Feller, CPA, CIA (Quality Control Reviewer)

Courtney Ambres-Wade, CFE, CGAP (Audit Manager)



Appendix 2

Issue Rating Classifications and Descriptions

Auditors used professional judgement and rated the audit findings identified in this report. Those issue ratings are summarized in the report chapters/sub-chapters. The issue ratings were determined based on the degree of risk or effect of the findings in relation to the audit objective(s).

In determining the ratings of audit findings, auditors considered factors such as financial impact; potential failure to meet program/function objectives; noncompliance with state statute(s), rules, regulations, and other requirements or criteria; and the inadequacy of the design and/or operating effectiveness of internal controls. In addition, evidence of potential fraud, waste, or abuse; significant control environment issues; and little to no corrective action for issues previously identified could increase the ratings for audit findings. Auditors also identified and considered other factors when appropriate.

Table 12 provides a description of the issue ratings presented in this report.

Table 12

Summary of Issue Ratings

Issue Rating Description of Rating

Low The audit identified strengths that support the audited entity’s ability to administer the program(s)/function(s) audited or the issues identified do not present significant risks or effects that would negatively affect the audited entity’s ability to effectively administer the program(s)/function(s) audited.

Medium Issues identified present risks or effects that if not addressed could moderately affect the audited entity’s ability to effectively administer the program(s)/function(s) audited. Action is needed to address the noted concern(s) and reduce risks to a more desirable level.

High Issues identified present risks or effects that if not addressed could substantially affect the audited entity’s ability to effectively administer the program(s)/function(s) audited. Prompt action is essential to address the noted concern(s) and reduce risks to the audited entity.

Priority Issues identified present risks or effects that if not addressed could critically affect the audited entity’s ability to effectively administer the program(s)/function(s) audited. Immediate action is required to address the noted concern(s) and reduce risks to the audited entity.



Appendix 3

Related State Auditor’s Office Work

Related State Auditor’s Office Work

Number Product Name Release Date

18-701 A Classification Compliance Audit Report on Information Technology Positions at Selected Education Agencies

October 2017

Copies of this report have been distributed to the following:

Legislative Audit Committee The Honorable Dan Patrick, Lieutenant Governor, Joint Chair The Honorable Dennis Bonnen, Speaker of the House, Joint Chair The Honorable Jane Nelson, Senate Finance Committee The Honorable Robert Nichols, Member, Texas Senate The Honorable John Zerwas, House Appropriations Committee The Honorable Dustin Burrows, House Ways and Means Committee

Office of the Governor The Honorable Greg Abbott, Governor

Board Members and Executive Directors of the

Following State Agencies Animal Health Commission Commission on Environmental Quality Department of Agriculture General Land Office Parks and Wildlife Department Railroad Commission Soil and Water Conservation Board Water Development Board

This document is not copyrighted. Readers may make additional copies of this report as needed. In addition, most State Auditor’s Office reports may be downloaded from our Web site: www.sao.texas.gov. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this document may also be requested in alternative formats. To do so, contact our report request line at (512) 936-9500 (Voice), (512) 936-9400 (FAX), 1-800-RELAY-TX (TDD), or visit the Robert E. Johnson Building, 1501 North Congress Avenue, Suite 4.224, Austin, Texas 78701. The State Auditor’s Office is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability in employment or in the provision of services, programs, or activities. To report waste, fraud, or abuse in state government call the SAO Hotline: 1-800-TX-AUDIT.

A Classification Compliance Audit Report on Information ... · A Classification Compliance Audit...

Documents

Transcript of A Classification Compliance Audit Report on Information ... · A Classification Compliance Audit...